Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Nothing seemed to come of the April debian-policy thread about contrib
[0], but there seemed to be a very loose consensus that section 2.1.3
(definition of "contrib") should be changed.
So I'd like to propose that:
] 2.1.3. The contrib section
] --------------------------
]
] Every package in "contrib" must comply with the DFSG.
]
] Examples of packages which would be included in "contrib" are
] * free packages which require "contrib", "non-free", or "non-US"
] packages or packages which are not in our archive at all for
] compilation or execution,
] * wrapper packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free
] programs,
] * packages which we don't want to support because they are too
] buggy, and
] * packages which fail to meet some other policy requirements in a
] serious way.
...be changed to...
] 2.1.3. The contrib section
] --------------------------
]
] Every package in "contrib" must comply with the DFSG.
]
] Examples of packages which would be included in "contrib" are
] * free packages which require "contrib", "non-free", or "non-US"
] packages or packages which are not in our archive at all for
] compilation or execution, and
] * wrapper packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free
] programs.
That is, that the only consideration about whether a package should be
added to main, contrib or non-free be its licensing terms.
Packages that are `too buggy to support' or `fail to meet policy
requirements in a serious way' should either be fixed (ideally), or not
included in Debian at all.
Cheers,
aj
[0] See: http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9904/msg00192.html
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpk9Lglsg0Fj.pgp
Description: PGP signature